Find Nearby Plumbers In Tacoma, Washington

This plumbing contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently praised punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior across 38 reviews. Pricing is a significant strength, with 22 reviews explicitly commending fair, reasonable, and transparent rates—often beating competitor quotes substantially. Project completion shows solid execution with most jobs finished promptly, though two negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2017) indicate occasional reliability issues with follow-through and callbacks. Technical experience is well-documented across 18 reviews, with customers praising knowledgeable diagnosis and quality workmanship. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects strong overall performance tempered by documented service failures.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2017-12-20) describes a catastrophic failure—incorrect blower hookup causing carbon monoxide poisoning that killed three dogs. This is a life-safety issue and represents severe technical incompetence or negligence.
• One 1-star review (2017-07-14) documents chronic lateness (2-3 hours) and repeated callbacks for same problems, indicating reliability and quality control issues.
• Majority of reviews (40+ of 51) are from 2018-2021, with only 2 recent reviews from 2024. Recency is limited; most data is 3+ years old.
• One review (2017-05-01, 4-star) mentions multiple return visits (2-3 days) to complete work, suggesting either complexity or incomplete initial assessment.
• Empty/blank review text detected (2 instances with 5.0 rating, no content)—these were excluded from analysis but suggest potential data quality issues.
• High concentration of 5-star reviews (47 of 51) with very few negative reviews raises minor concern about review authenticity, though the two 1-star reviews are detailed and credible, suggesting genuine mixed feedback rather than fake reviews.

This score is reliable for general assessment but should be heavily weighted toward recent performance: the two critical failures (2017) are 6-7 years old, yet they document serious safety and reliability issues that warrant caution. The HIGH confidence is based on volume of mentions across dimensions, but the recency gap and severity of documented failures mean this score should not be treated as current-state performance without recent verification.

John the Plumber demonstrates strong professionalism with punctual, courteous technicians who communicate clearly and explain work thoroughly. Technical expertise is consistently praised across hundreds of reviews, with skilled problem-solving and knowledgeable staff. Project completion is generally reliable with most jobs finished as promised, though some callbacks and follow-up issues are noted. Pricing is the weakest dimension—while many customers report fair rates, a significant minority report overcharging, high estimates, and pricing that exceeds competitors by $1,000+, creating polarized sentiment around value.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple identical or near-identical review texts appear across different dates (e.g., 'We are very thankful for James and his expertise...' appears twice; 'Tech were great scheduled appointment immediately' appears twice; 'Good service. Good follow up...' appears twice). This repetition is unusual and suggests possible review manipulation or data duplication.
• PRICING POLARIZATION: Extreme divergence in pricing feedback. Many 5-star reviews praise 'fair' and 'reasonable' pricing, while multiple 1-star reviews cite charges of $750–$9,900 for jobs competitors quote at $150–$3,000. This suggests either inconsistent pricing practices, variable technician judgment, or selective upselling.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews report misdiagnosis (e.g., wrong leak source, incorrect septic assessment) requiring callbacks or second opinions. A few reviews mention poor workmanship (crooked pipes, incorrect hot/cold hookups, damage to property).
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2024–2025) are overwhelmingly 5-star with generic praise. Older reviews (2015–2023) show more balanced feedback with specific complaints. Recent reviews lack detail and specificity typical of authentic customer feedback.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS CLUSTER: Multiple 1-star reviews cite communication failures, rude staff, no-shows, and refusal to honor warranties or callbacks. These are concentrated in 2019–2023 period, suggesting possible operational or management issues during that timeframe.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable for overall assessment but should be interpreted with caution: professionalism and experience scores (85+) are well-supported by 150+ mentions each and reflect genuine customer satisfaction with technician quality. However, the pricing score (72.8) masks significant polarization—some customers report excellent value while others report substantial overcharges. The recent flood of generic 5-star reviews and detected duplicate text patterns reduce confidence in the most recent data. Prospective customers should obtain multiple quotes and verify pricing upfront, as this company's cost structure appears inconsistent or variable by technician/location.

Scottco Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism and project completion. The contractor excels at responsiveness, punctuality, and fair pricing, with the vast majority of reviews praising honest communication and reasonable rates. Technical skill and workmanship quality are consistently highlighted. However, the score is tempered by a notable cluster of negative reviews (approximately 8-10 one-star ratings) documenting serious professionalism lapses including missed appointments, hanging up on customers, poor communication follow-through, and unprofessional conduct. These incidents create meaningful reliability concerns despite the overwhelmingly positive majority.

• PATTERN OF NEGATIVE REVIEWS: Approximately 8-10 one-star reviews document serious professionalism failures including: hanging up on customers (multiple instances), missed appointments without notice, poor follow-up communication, and unprofessional text/email responses. These are not isolated complaints but a recurring pattern.
• COMMUNICATION INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews explicitly state Scott or his team failed to return calls, emails, or texts despite promises to do so. This directly contradicts the 'highly responsive' narrative in positive reviews.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY: Multiple negative reviews cite missed appointments or no-shows without adequate notice, which contradicts the 'always on time' claim in positive reviews.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CONCERN - LIMITED: While most reviews appear genuine with specific details, the extremely high concentration of 5-star reviews (approximately 130+ out of 150) with minimal critical detail is statistically unusual. However, individual reviews contain sufficient specificity and variation to suggest authenticity rather than fabrication. The negative reviews appear genuine and unfiltered.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One review documents a $450 charge for a 2-hour valve replacement; another documents $550 for toilet installation. While generally praised as 'reasonable,' some individual jobs appear high relative to the stated philosophy of fair pricing.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (past 12 months) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while negative reviews cluster in 2013-2020 period. This could indicate either business improvement or review filtering/deletion.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the score reflects genuinely strong performance on technical skill, pricing fairness, and typical job completion, the documented pattern of serious professionalism failures (missed appointments, hanging up on customers, poor communication follow-through) suggests the contractor's reliability is inconsistent and context-dependent. Customers should expect excellent work quality and fair pricing but should not assume guaranteed responsiveness or appointment adherence. The score is reliable for assessing technical competence but less reliable for predicting customer service consistency.

Maple Valley Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1, driven primarily by exceptional professionalism and reliable project completion. The company excels at responsiveness, punctuality, and customer service, with numerous reviews highlighting same-day or next-day service and friendly, courteous interactions. Technical competence and workmanship quality are consistently praised across reviews. However, pricing emerges as a relative weakness, with several customers noting higher-than-expected quotes or feeling overcharged, though most still rate the service favorably. A small but notable cluster of negative reviews (approximately 8 one-star ratings) reveals serious interpersonal issues with the owner Dave in specific situations, including dismissive communication, profanity, and blocking clients—these incidents significantly impact overall trustworthiness despite the predominance of positive feedback.

• CRITICAL: Eight 1-star reviews and three 2-4 star reviews reveal serious behavioral red flags with owner Dave Sipila, including: telling a client to 'move on' after declining a quote, using profanity and insulting language toward clients, hanging up and blocking a property manager, ghosting clients, and dismissive responses to legitimate service requests. These incidents suggest inconsistent customer treatment and potential anger management issues.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews mention unexpectedly high quotes (e.g., $650 for garbage disposal vs. competitor's $450; $250/hr labor rate perceived as excessive). While most customers still rate work favorably, pricing transparency and consistency appear problematic.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 60% of reviews are from the past 12 months (2024-2025), showing recent strong performance. However, negative behavioral incidents span 2018-2024, suggesting ongoing interpersonal issues rather than isolated past problems.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The overwhelming concentration of 5-star reviews (approximately 70 of 81 total) with highly similar positive language ('highly recommend,' 'amazing,' 'professional,' 'quick response') and lack of specific technical detail in many reviews raises minor concerns about review authenticity. However, the presence of credible negative reviews and specific project details in positive reviews mitigates this concern.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: The stark contrast between glowing testimonials and serious complaints suggests service quality and owner behavior are highly variable depending on circumstances and client interaction style.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and strong operational responsiveness in most situations, the documented pattern of unprofessional and hostile owner behavior toward specific clients introduces significant reliability risk for customers who may encounter similar interpersonal friction, particularly around pricing disputes or administrative issues. The score reflects average performance across a large dataset, but individual customer experience may vary substantially.

Sound Rooter & Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently praised responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous communication across 23 reviews. Project completion is solid at 85.0 based on 20 mentions, with most jobs finished on time and to satisfaction. Technical experience scores 86.0 across 16 mentions, reflecting skilled workmanship and problem-solving ability. However, pricing is a significant concern at 68.0 based on 11 mentions—while many reviews praise fair pricing and competitive quotes, three detailed negative reviews (2022, 2021, 2020) describe substantial overcharges and unauthorized work additions totaling thousands of dollars, creating material doubt about pricing consistency and transparency.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Three 1-2 star reviews (2022-12-12, 2021-11-11, 2020-06-17) describe significant overcharges and unauthorized work additions ($454.56 for 10 minutes, $2500 for work quoted lower). These are detailed, specific complaints with invoice amounts—not generic criticism. This contradicts the 'fair pricing' narrative in positive reviews.
• AUTHORIZATION CONCERNS: 2021-11-11 review explicitly states work was done 'without my authorization' and customer was not informed of additional costs before charging. 2020-06-17 review describes similar issue with undisclosed pricing for added work.
• EQUIPMENT LIMITATIONS: 2022-12-12 review indicates company lacks necessary equipment (multiple rooter sizes) for larger jobs, limiting scope of service despite accepting the work.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2018-2024, but the three most damaging pricing complaints are from 2020-2022. More recent reviews (2023-2024) do not mention pricing concerns, suggesting possible improvement or selection bias in recent reviewers.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews show genuine variation in detail, specific names (Marcus, Crystal/Chrystal, Zach), different problem types, and authentic emotional range. Negative reviews are substantive and credible.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable for professionalism and project completion dimensions (HIGH confidence), but the pricing score of 68.0 should be treated with caution—while based on MODERATE confidence (11 mentions), the three detailed negative reviews describing unauthorized charges and overpricing represent material risk that may not be fully captured in the aggregate score. Prospective customers should request detailed written estimates and explicit authorization before any work begins.

J&J Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in professionalism, experience, and project completion. The company consistently receives praise for punctuality, responsiveness, technical skill, and honest communication. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple customers citing overcharges and unfair rates for routine work. Several negative reviews highlight serious issues including incomplete repairs, poor follow-up on callbacks, and customer service failures. The company's long operational history and numerous repeat customers indicate genuine capability, but inconsistency in service quality and pricing transparency are concerns.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (2021-11-11, 2023-02-10) explicitly cite overcharging and unfair pricing practices. One customer reported $350 for a 20-minute drain cleaning and noted the company was 'proud' of overcharging neighbors. This pattern suggests systematic pricing issues.
• INCOMPLETE WORK & CALLBACKS: Review from 2022-08-11 describes a plumber (Jerry) who made a toilet problem worse and refused to provide callback service or refund. Review from 2022-05-27 documents two no-shows and failure to complete scheduled work.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Review from 2023-07-03 notes cleanliness issues (dirt smeared on walls, footprints tracked through home). Review from 2023-02-10 describes incomplete work with equipment failure.
• UNRELATED INCIDENT: Review from 2017-04-18 describes aggressive driving behavior by a company van driver, which may reflect company culture but is not directly related to plumbing service quality.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text or only punctuation (dates 2021-06-10, 2018-06-11, 2015-10-07, 2015-08-10), limiting data quality.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are from 2018 or earlier (approximately 70% of dataset). Only 5 reviews are from 2023-2024, making recent performance assessment difficult. Recent reviews show more negative patterns than historical reviews.

This WW Score of 81.2 should be treated with moderate caution. While the score is based on substantial data (55 usable reviews with HIGH confidence across most dimensions), the dataset is heavily weighted toward older reviews (pre-2020), and recent reviews (2023-2024) show a concerning shift toward negative feedback regarding pricing and service completion. The pricing dimension, though based on MODERATE confidence, reveals a consistent pattern of customer dissatisfaction that may be underrepresented in the overall score. The company demonstrates genuine technical capability and professionalism in many cases, but inconsistency in pricing transparency and follow-through on callbacks represents material risks.